Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pankaj Manikrao Salave, filed a writ petition seeking admission to a degree course in Engineering/Technology at Respondent No.2 University for the academic year 2015-16. He applied based on private information about vacant seats on 13 August 2015, after the fourth counseling round had concluded on 7 August 2015, with the reporting deadline of 11 August 2015. The university had not advertised the vacant seats before the cutoff date of 14 August 2015, nor circulated the information on its website, resulting in seven seats remaining unfilled. The petitioner was not successful in the merit-based counseling rounds. The court considered whether the petitioner could claim admission to a vacant seat without a public advertisement. The petitioner's counsel argued that there was no specific rule requiring advertisement by the university. The court rejected this submission, relying on settled Supreme Court law that due process, including clear advertisement, must be followed before filling vacant seats, even after the last round. The court held that the petitioner had no right to admission as it was not merit-based and the university's failure to advertise did not create a right in favor of the petitioner. The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.
Headnote
A) Education Law - Admission to Engineering Course - Merit-Based Selection - The petitioner applied for admission to a degree course in Engineering/Technology for the academic year 2015-16 based on private information about vacant seats, but the university had not advertised the vacancies. The court held that admission cannot be granted without following due process, including public advertisement, and that the petitioner had no right to admission as he was not selected on merit in the counseling rounds (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a candidate who was not successful in the merit-based counseling rounds can claim admission to a vacant seat in a university that did not advertise the vacancy, based on private information.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Admission to educational institutions must be based on merit and due process
- including advertisement of vacant seats
- even after the last counseling round
- no right to admission arises from private information without public advertisement.
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (09) 45
Writ Petition No. 8441 of 2015
Anoop V. Mohta, A.A. Sayed
Mr. Ashok B. Tajane for the Petitioner, Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for State, Mr. A.K. Jalisatgi for Respondent No.2
Directorate of Technical Education and ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking admission to a degree course in Engineering/Technology.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to grant him admission to the vacant seat in the engineering course.
Filing Reason
The petitioner applied for admission based on private information about vacant seats after the counseling rounds were over, but the university did not advertise the vacancies.
Previous Decisions
The fourth counseling round was over on 7 August 2015, and the petitioner was not successful in the merit-based selection.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to admission to a vacant seat in an engineering course when the university did not advertise the vacancy and the petitioner was not selected on merit in the counseling rounds.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that there was no specific rule requiring the university to advertise vacant seats, and therefore the university could not deny admission on that ground.
The respondents submitted that the petitioner had no right to admission as he was not selected on merit and the university had not advertised the vacancies.
Ratio Decidendi
Admission to educational institutions must be based on merit and due process, including public advertisement of vacant seats. A candidate who is not selected on merit in the counseling rounds cannot claim admission based on private information, especially when the university has not advertised the vacancies.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioner was not successful in getting admission based upon merit, inspite of fourth round (counseling round). Therefore, there is no question of granting such admission to the Petitioner, which is not merit based, merely because he has applied based upon private source of information.
We are not inclined to accept this submission as it is settled by the Supreme Court that the due process need to be followed even after the last round is declared, i.e. due and clear advertisement before filling any vacant seat by a private Institution including the University like the Respondent in question.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay seeking admission to an engineering course. The petition was heard and disposed of on 10 September 2015.
